Madam President, reserving the right to object, and I will not object, I simply wish to acquaint Senators with the fact that we are beginning a 5-hour debate on the Levin amendment; is that correct? And within that period of time, speaking…
Madam President, reserving the right to object, and I will not object, I simply wish to acquaint Senators with the fact that we are beginning a 5-hour debate on the Levin amendment; is that correct?
And within that period of time, speaking for my time, I will manage the time, but I would be anxious to have those colleagues who wish to participate to indicate to me the periods which would be most convenient for them, and I will do my very best to accommodate all of the speakers.
I see the principal cosponsor, the Senator from Rhode Island, a member of our committee, is waiting to speak. I would just like to inquire the following of my colleague.
I have found in our many years in this body that the most effective means to convey a message, the most effective way for the persons beyond this Chamber to follow proceedings on the floor, is often through a colloquy where we not just read speeches but we begin to exchange interpretations of what is before this body by virtue of your amendment and get the responses.
Might I inquire of my colleague of his willingness to permit the Senator from Virginia, at such time as the Senator from Rhode Island has completed, to get up and propound questions chargeable to my side and responses that you wish to make, to the extent you wish to make them, chargeable to your side? Is that a procedure about which I can be persuasive to my colleague, which I find to be a very effective way to deal with this?
Mr. President, I would have to respectfully disagree with what is usual. Time and time again, Senators get up and allocate between themselves the question and answer. I have to take it we are confined primarily, I imagine, to the reading of speeches by individuals and limiting the ability to have a colloquy.
The Senator has made clear his statement. I yield the floor as a courtesy to the Senator from Rhode Island.
Mr. President, I yield myself such time as I may require.
Mr. President, I remember so well last year when we debated an amendment of great importance, and our colleague from Michigan laid down an amendment. Then I took that amendment and rewrote certain portions of it. A great majority of the Senate--I can't remember exactly how many but a vast majority of the Senate--supported that.
I have waited patiently for this amendment. It was given to me yesterday. I have studied it ever so carefully. I didn't denounce the amendment. I said it was a serious amendment. It is a serious amendment. It deserves serious thought.
But, regrettably, there is no way in which I can truthfully say to my side of the aisle and others that this amendment can be revised or modified such that we could hope to get what we achieved last year--a large majority of the Senate supporting the amendment.
That is unfortunate because we start out on a basis of where we could well end up today along strong partisan lines. That comes at a time when our Nation--indeed, the world and, most importantly, the men and women of the Armed Forces--would like to see the Senate and, indeed, hopefully, the Congress standing behind them with strong bipartisanship. But I fear that it is going to be lost with this amendment.
First, I carefully point out to those who are following this debate that this amendment in effect is nonbinding. It is the sense of the Senate, or Congress, as the case may be. But nevertheless it sends signals. It sort of states what this body feels should be done by the President of the United States as he continues to exercise his constitutional powers--I underline ``constitutional powers.'' He is the Commander in Chief, not Members of the Senate--constitutional powers in carrying forward the actions of our Armed Forces, and the actions of our Government as we try to support the newly elected unified Government of Iraq.
As the nature of this free advice may be, my burden--and those of us on this side--is to point out how this can be misconstrued as the message crosses the ocean and as the Congress is trying to order the President to do certain things. That is not going to be the case.
I have had recently the opportunity to have some private conversations with the President of the United States. My gray hair indicates that I have been privileged to serve in this institution now in my 28th year and before that for a number of years in the Department of Defense. I have worked with, I say with a sense of humility, many Presidents through many chapters of American history. But I must say I have yet to find any President with a stronger resolve, a stronger conviction to do what he believes is in the best interests of the American people, employing the forces of our men and women of the Armed Forces, employing every means this Government has to bring about solutions which he has outlined time and time again in Iraq and, indeed, Afghanistan. It is remarkable, unwavering, listening to advice, taking into consideration the views of others but clearly looking into the future, a future that generations long after we are gone will look back on this chapter of American history and I believe will decide that we pursued the correct course. Hopefully, those generations will be enjoying the measure of freedom that we have today. But that will only come to pass if the Congress of the United States provides this President the support that he needs.
Therefore, it may be in the nature of free advice, but I want to clearly indicate to all following that there is much to be done to try and explain where I see there is fault in this amendment.
Last week, the Senate overwhelmingly rejected a proposal to establish an arbitrary deadline of a timetable for withdrawal of United States forces from Iraq. An arbitrary deadline of a timetable would have been a serious strategic error, and a historic mistake of withdrawing our forces prior to the Iraqis being able to defend themselves. It would encourage terrorism, embolden al-Qaida, and threaten American security.
Regrettably, the various courses of action that spring forth from the Democratic side of this aisle concern me greatly. They may not say it is a timetable.
It is interesting that in the course of the presentation of this amendment in the media, I have watched my colleagues from that side of the aisle explain what it is they are going to put before the Senate today. Time and time again, they keep saying it is not a timetable; it is not a timetable.
Why must they keep saying that the language is clear, that it is not a timetable?
But let us start with the key paragraph in the amendment of my good friend and long-time colleague.
I repeat it. It is on page 6.
Submit to the Congress a plan by the end of 2006 with
estimated dates for the continued phased redeployment of
United States forces from Iraq.
Folks, I don't mean to demean this, but that is the English language. It reads very clearly. It is a timetable, no matter how many times people protest it is not a timetable. It is the English language written with clarity.
We cannot accept that.
Our colleagues today on this side of the aisle will vigorously give their views as to why we cannot accept that.
Foremost in my mind is the loss of our men and women of the Armed Forces, now 2,500 in number, that have given the ultimate that any human being, any soldier, any sailor, any marine, any airman can give and that of their families.
I wonder how these individuals would look at this clause and find any other conclusion to draw but that this is a timetable--a timetable that could well cripple the ability of this new government created by the courageous actions of the Iraqi people time and time again in elections, after a hard fought political situation, in which emerges, hopefully, a strong Prime Minister.
They are just beginning to take full seizure of the reins of sovereignty, something this Nation has not had for
a very long time. As they are seizing those reins, we are asked to stand in the Senate and to lay out in writing for all those who want to destabilize this new government the timetable on which we will remove our Armed Forces.
Of course, there is a collateral question that is not addressed in this amendment. Maybe my colleague will address it. The United States, albeit, is the principal force of military. Great Britain, commensurate with the size of their armed forces and their nation and their population, has made a very significant contribution, as has Poland, and I could enumerate the other nations; modest though they may be, they are there. How are they to respond to this amendment? Are they to go on and pursue the missions they have laid out or are they to devise a timetable? That is one of the many unanswered questions I find in this amendment. Perhaps my colleagues will be forthcoming.
The major events certainly of the last 10 days--the elimination of al-Zarqawi, a terrorist without parallel in the contemporary times of all mankind, his elimination, the formation of this new government--has given a momentum forward. It has spawned a measure of hope among the Iraqi people. It has spawned a measure of hope within our Armed Forces that there is clear proof our many sacrifices to date are beginning to produce concrete, visible results that cannot be challenged.
We are moving toward establishing a secure and prosperous nation that will be an inspiration for the entire region of that world, and it is hard to think at this time we would take any action in this Senate to set back that momentum. The only way we are going to see our troops come home is if they seize that sovereignty, exercise that sovereignty, produce their own security and begin to reestablish their infrastructure.
I do not see this amendment in any way helping. I see this amendment as impeding the progress.
Give this new government a timetable. I ask my colleague, give them a timetable if you have to give a timetable to establish their goals, seize the reins of sovereignty. Do not broadcast through this amendment a timetable with regard to our forces.
We all know there have been some very difficult days, tragic hours, the most recent of which is the loss of our two brave soldiers seized, and although not fully confirmed, certainly the probability is they were badly abused, not treated as prisoners of war but badly abused by someone in Iraq. Who knows who they may have been? Obviously, the insurgents, presumably al-Qaida.
Our President, Secretaries of State and Defense, and our military commanders have all stood and said forthrightly, these are painful losses. Each one of these individuals I know and have worked with personally. They feel the loss of life. They feel for the injured. They feel for their families. But to attain the freedom, not just for the Iraqis but for this country, from terrorism, that pain has to be endured, those losses are likely to continue. I commend all for being forthright that the days ahead pose challenges and further losses.
Any amendment requiring phased redeployment as our policy on a timetable to begin in 2006 sends that signal that begins to set back the progress we have achieved to date. That phrase about the timetable of redeployment will be examined with utmost care by those who are trying to destabilize this government--be they al-Qaida, insurgents, or, unfortunately, the sectarian violence. They are likely to say, we will wait out the timetable and then we will resume the violence and with every means we can to destabilize this government. That will be the result of this amendment.
This is an inopportune time because in the last 10 days we witnessed the death of the most prominent terrorist in Iraq, the complete formation of the Iraqi Government, a historic meeting in Baghdad between President Bush and Prime Minister Maliki, more raids against al-Qaida cells in Iraq, and a plan for the way ahead for this new democratically elected government in Iraq. We have the momentum. We must take advantage of this moment and this opportunity and move forward.
I know other colleagues are anxious to speak. I want to share this time.
I pose a question to my distinguished colleague from Michigan about another paragraph in his amendment. This one I find particularly puzzling. It is written, again, in very clear language, so I feel the meaning of it is written explicitly on page 5.
It says that the President of the United States should do the following:
(i) expedite the transition of United States forces in Iraq
to a limited presence . . .
What do you mean by ``limited presence''?
. . . limited presence and mission of training Iraqi security
forces . . .
That we are doing with every bit of vigor we can possibly muster.
. . . providing logistic support of Iraqi security forces . .
.
We are doing that as best we can.
. . . protecting United States infrastructure and personnel,
and participating in targeted counterterrorism activities;
Does that mean we limit our force structure to the special ops forces? What is it that the balance of our forces do? Do they begin to rotate back under this timetable?
I hope at some point in this debate those questions can be fully answered because the President is the Commander in Chief. He makes the decisions with regard to how our Armed Forces are employed utilizing the advice of the professional military commanders to direct specifically the actions to carry out the missions to achieve our goals.
I say to my good friend, this paragraph D, the President should expedite the transition, what is the nature of the transition of United States forces in Iraq to a limited presence?
I see no contingency phrase in this as there is elsewhere in this amendment. If they were to have a tremendous insurrection, what do we do if we have transitioned our forces? Does that mean they are moved somewhere? Does that mean they stay in their bases?
This paragraph, in effect, is usurping the rights under the Constitution of the Commander in Chief to direct the day-by-day operations and deployment and disposition of our Armed Forces. I hope in the course of this debate they will find time to explain with greater clarity what is meant by that paragraph.
After consultation, No. 2, ``with the Government of Iraq, begin the phased redeployment of United States forces from Iraq this year,'' to me, again, lays down a marker that something is in the hip pocket regarding a timetable.
Yes, we start with the government, and the Senator from Michigan cited some of the current government officials and some of the statements they have made. I freely say some of those statements do raise questions in my mind, but this government has only been in business a bare month. We have to give them time. We have to give the new Congress of the Iraqi Government an opportunity to voice its views in conjunction with those of the government officials.
This word ``after consultation . . . begin the phased redeployment,'' how about if the government said we did not want a phased redeployment at this time? What would be the purpose of the consultation if they said, We do not want it at this time?
That statement, in effect, has been stated time and time again while there have been remarks that, yes, we hope you will lure your forces away, the bottom line is, they know they cannot survive with this new government if we begin any major withdrawal of forces in the coming 2 or 3 months while this government is taking root.
That is clear. No one disputes that.
But you say ``consultation,'' then ``begin the phased redeployment . . . from Iraq.'' That is not my idea of consultation. My idea of consultation is to take into consideration the viewpoints of both sides.
So we come back to submit to Congress a plan by the end of the year 2006 with estimated dates for the continued phased redeployment of United States forces from Iraq with the understanding that unexpected contingencies may arise.
That is fortunate to have that in there, but that is sort of lost because of the prominence of the first sentence. That is what is going to be read and interpreted by the insurgents, all those who want to bring down this new government. That signal must not be sent by the Congress.
Mr. President, I yield the floor at this time and reserve the remainder of my time.
Mr. President, let me inquire of colleagues on this side who wish to speak. We started this morning by according the Senator from Michigan and the Senator from Rhode Island their opportunities. I have spoken on this side. I know Senator McCain has just arrived, and Senator Cornyn.
So I say to Senator McCain, I think you were the first on the floor.
Mr. President, I ask that Senator McCain follow me, and then we will rotate to this side and back to Senator Cornyn.
So at this time, I yield the floor and ask unanimous consent that recognition be given to the Senator from Arizona.
Why don't you designate someone?
Following that, Senator Cornyn will speak.
He would follow Senator McCain and the distinguished Senator from New York and the Senator from Texas.
Then the Senator from Colorado.
You designate that Senator.
I yield the floor.
Mr. President, we grant 12 minutes to the Senator from Arizona.
Mr. President, the same order with the addition of Salazar.
Mr. President, I wish to thank our colleague from Texas for his powerful message and also for his work on the Senate Armed Services Committee where he has labored long and hard and well into the future, I hope. I thank the Senator.
I yield the floor.
Mr. President, I yield myself just a minute or two. I listened carefully, as I do to all the comments made by my colleagues, and I believe I heard my distinguished colleague from California say that the most costly war ever is the one we are engaged in.
I would like to remind my colleague and all those listening and all in America--we deeply grieve the 2,500 lives we have lost thus far and the 18,000 wounded--but I remember so well when I was but 17 or just turned 18. I was in the Navy during the last battle of World War II; just one of those battles in World War II. I was in the training command at that time awaiting my orders to go to the Pacific. It began on Easter Sunday morning, and it ended 81 days later. One battle, 81 days, in 1945. Let me tell my colleague what America suffered. Twelve thousand men, and I expect some women, were killed or missing and never accounted for; 38,000 were wounded, 763 aircraft were lost, 368 U.S. naval ships either sunk or were severely damaged.
We have to be cautious and put this conflict in context with the sacrifices that Americans have made. That was just one battle in World War II. The casualties eventually went over a half a million. That was only one battle.
As we look at this conflict, yes, we grieve the losses, but we have to maintain this steadfast commitment, as we did in World War II, to put an end to this tyranny of terrorism. If not, we will not see casualties like Okinawa in any military conflict in the years to come between soldiers, sailors, airmen, and their counterparts, but we could see those casualties here at home if these terrorists acquire weapons of mass destruction or are given places in the world to have their training camps, and if they perceive that this Nation is in any way wavering its commitment to fight terrorism in every aspect we can.
So I would say to my dear colleague, I don't think this is the most costly
war ever, as I believe the record will reflect.
I yield the floor.
Well, that was not clear in the statement that you made. You used the word ``cost.'' I did not put down the cost of all the military equipment of the wars. But I think when we look at cost, we should think of lives expended. And we are here today exercising that freedom from that generation of World War II, the generation that fought in Korea, the generation that fought in Vietnam, and the generation that is fighting today.
I yield the floor.
Mr. President, would you advise the managers as to the allocation of time still remaining under the control of each?
I thank the Chair.
Mr. President, I yield to the Senator from Oregon up to 10 minutes.
Mr. President, I yield myself such time as I may consume to say to my colleague, what a truly heartfelt, remarkable set of comments. I thank the Senator for contributing to this important debate.
I yield the floor.
Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from South Carolina.
I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Colorado.
Mr. President, I suggest that the Senator from Virginia is next, to be followed then by the Senator from Nebraska, Mr. Hagel.
Mr. President, we will go from one side to the other. I have waiting the Senator from Virginia, Senator Hagel, Senator Roberts, Senator Bond, and Senator Thune. I will try to get them all in order of appearance. The Senator from Virginia is next on our side. I will sort out the sequence of the others.
Mr. President, take a minute or so.
Mr. President, I thank our colleague for his remarks. He speaks from a body of personal experience and considerable courage as a member of the Armed Forces of the United States, which he has exhibited in these years.
Mr. President, we have on our side Senators Thune and Roberts who are waiting. I know Senator Bond has indicated he wishes to speak, and Senator Inhofe. I wish to advise those Senators I have to recognize those on the floor; otherwise, we lose time to a quorum call or otherwise. So we are going to alternate at this time. We are going to shift to the other side.
Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from South Dakota.
Mr. President, I advise colleagues on my side, there is one Republican waiting, and others who have indicated a desire to speak. I urge them to come to the floor because I have under my control roughly 20 minutes.
Mr. President, and then following the Senator from New Jersey, the Senator from Kansas, Mr. Roberts, will be recognized, and then following Senator Roberts, the Senator from Missouri, Mr. Bond.
Mr. President, how much time remains for the Senator from Virginia?
Mr. President, I recognize on the floor Senator Roberts, Senator Bond, and Senator Inhofe, and Senator Kyl intends to come. So with the balance of that time, I will try to allocate it as equally as we can. I think Senator Roberts is next in line, so I yield to Senator Roberts 4 to 5 minutes.
Mr. President, what is the time remaining?
I will yield the 2 minutes, and then the two other colleagues can divide equally the time that is remaining.
What is the time remaining on this side?
I am going to relinquish the time I hoped to use to do wrapup remarks and divide it equally between the Senator from Missouri and the Senator from Oklahoma.
Mr. President, if the Senator will yield, I will just yield a minute to myself. I compliment the Senator from Missouri. That was a heartfelt message. I hope Mr. Dean gets it verbatim because your son, whom I have watched grow up through these many years, is proud to be a United States Marine and to take on his duty.
Mr. President, I wish to advise colleagues at the hour of 5 o'clock this debate on the Levin amendment is concluded. My understanding is we proceed to an amendment by the Senator from Massachusetts, Mr. Kerry, and Mr. Feingold, Mrs. Boxer, and Mr. Leahy. In examining that amendment, I say to my colleagues who are anxious to continue addressing the issues of the amendment of Senator Levin, I think the basic format in this amendment lays a clear predicate for all those who are desiring to speak to have their word tonight sometime because we are to conclude this debate tonight. I yield the floor.
How much?
Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Oklahoma for wrapping up close to 20 Senators on this side who have spoken to this issue. I remind my colleague there will be further debate tonight. I am anxious to have as many as possible come over and join me. I commend the Senator on his statement and thank the Senator for his long, hard work on our bill throughout this year.
Mr. President, with regard to the pending amendment, I would only say, in response to the extra 10 seconds you had, I would hope that security adviser was in consultation with our Government at the time he made those remarks to determine the authenticity of those remarks.
Now, my understanding is we now turn to an amendment by the Senator from Massachusetts and the Senator from Wisconsin, I believe. Is that correct?
Cosponsors of that amendment: the Senator from California, Mrs. Boxer, and the Senator from Vermont, Mr. Leahy.
I inquire of the manager, in consultation with the proponents of this amendment, first, if we could get some estimate of the time for the introduction of the amendment. And then I would hope we would continue the practice that we have had today by which Senators go back and forth on each side.
Mr. President, I intend to remain. I do not know that there is a time agreement on this amendment.
In other words, we are in an unusual situation. Now, maybe the distinguished colleague from Massachusetts can help advise his leadership and me as to the time. It would be helpful because, like colleagues on this side, there are commitments on our side with regard to what Members wish to do this evening.
So I am just trying to strike a note of comity so that we can accommodate those Senators on both sides of the aisle who are anxious to participate in this debate.
Mr. President, I thank my colleague. I don't wish to misinterpret his comments, but there was an amendment brought up by his senior colleague from Massachusetts that took an inordinate amount of time, which we had not anticipated. If there was some disjuncture of the process over here, I believe it was initiated on that side.
Let's return to the matter at hand. Would 30 minutes allow you to begin this debate and then we could have, say, 15 or so on this side and then--
Do you think we could have some response from this side before Senator Feingold begins?
Yes.
I am not objecting to that. I recognize you Senators have commitments. There are colleagues on this side who have commitments. We are trying to balance that and recognize that the proponents of the amendment should have an opportunity to lay it down. It so happens that there are four cosponsors.
Mr. President, I thank my colleague, but can he give us some definition of the time desired by yourself and Senator Feingold? Let's assume it is a half hour now between the Senator from Illinois and the Senator from Vermont; that is, 30 minutes.
That would be an hour and 20 minutes before anyone on this side--
Two hours and 20 minutes before anyone on this side gets an opportunity to seek recognition other than the manager for purposes of a parliamentary inquiry.
That is a substantial departure from the manner in which we have managed this bill thus far. I really think that this is most unusual. We have no time agreement. We have an open-ended amendment. We have four sponsors. We have colleagues that have commitments tonight. I really believe at some point----
Fine. That is quite agreeable to me, take 30 minutes to present the amendment. Then we will on this side have an equal amount of time.
So an hour and 20 minutes on this side to initiate the amendment. I will concede that we will do that. But it seems to me somewhat a departure from the way we normally manage things. Then it comes to this side for, let's say, an hour's debate.
Yes.
Mr. President, I would be happy to say, when the time comes to this side, he can initiate on our time his remarks.
Senator Lieberman. I didn't hear Senator Byrd mentioned. Let's hear from our senior colleague as to what his desires are.
I would be happy to do that at the conclusion of 1 hour and 20 minutes, that our side be recognized for a period of, let's say, 30 minutes, of which the first 10 will be given to Senator Lieberman.
I do believe we ought to hear from our senior colleague as to what his desires might be.
I have no objection, if you wish to initiate with those two
Senators beginning with 10 minutes each. Then what is to follow thereafter?
Therefore using what amount of time?
So we are back to the hour and 20 minutes on that side before we receive any time on this side?
The amendment has been here for some time. I have had an opportunity to examine it.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
Yes, out of respect for our distinguished colleague.
Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry: To inform both the senior Senator from West Virginia, myself, and others, what is the order before the Senate at this time? My understanding is the Kerry- Feingold amendment with an unlimited amount of time on it and there is no provision for other amendments at this time; is that correct?
I say to my good friend, the order has been in for some 24 hours by which this is the amendment. The time allocation is under the control of the two managers. We will work that out momentarily, hopefully on an equitable basis. I do not at this point in time see the opportunity for the introduction of your amendment, I say with due respect, until such time as the debate on the Kerry-Feingold amendment is concluded.
Mr. President, I would be more than happy to accommodate my distinguished friend and leader. I simply say that unless we amend the order at this point, I do not see that opportunity. I will be glad to put in a quorum in hopes that we can resolve not only the time allocation on this side but how we could accommodate our distinguished colleague from West Virginia.
That is a very reasonable request. I now ask unanimous consent that the Senator from Vermont and the Senator from Illinois be----
That the Senator from Vermont and the Senator from Illinois be recognized at this time seriatim for 10 minutes each, during which time we are going to try to negotiate the time allowance. Then at the end of that 20 minutes, we resume under the standing order of the Senate and the Kerry amendment goes back.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.
Mr. President, I thank all for their cooperation. I think we have reached a reconciliation of the needs and requirements of all for a period of time. Therefore, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Kerry be recognized now to offer his amendment and, provided further, that he then be allocated 30 minutes to speak; further, that there be debate only as follows; provided further, that that be followed by up to 30 minutes under the control of the chairman, Senator Warner, to be followed by up to 30 minutes under the control of Senator Boxer, to be followed by 20 minutes under the control of Senator Byrd; provided further, that there now be a period of 10 minutes under the control of Senator Lieberman; thereafter, provided further, that there be 30 minutes under the control of Chairman Warner, to be followed by Senator Feingold, to be followed by Senator Warner.
Mr. President, I say to my good friend, we have now spent 30 minutes working out this time arrangement.
As amended.
Has the Chair announced the acceptance of the unanimous consent request?
I thank my colleague from Massachusetts. We all try to work within the framework of the unanimous consent.
At this point in time, the Senator from Virginia, myself, has the time between 6:35 and 7:05, a period of 30 minutes. I would like to now offer the first 15 minutes to the Senator from Connecticut and retrieve a period of time he had from 7:55 to 8:05 to be added to my time which commences at 8:05.
Then, following the Senator from Connecticut, the Senator from Pennsylvania would be recognized for the remainder of my time in this time slot, Mr. Santorum.
That would be followed, I inform other Senators, by Senator Boxer, from roughly 7:05 to 7:35, and then the distinguished senior Senator from West Virginia, 7:35 to 7:55.
Mr. President, I will say to my good friend and colleague--and my remarks are not predicated on the fact in all likelihood that he will cast a vote which will be supportive of the views that this Senator and others on this side of the aisle have stated, but I say out of the long time that we have worked together to those Senators who may not remember it that I was tasked to draw up the first resolution in the Gulf War when George Bush, Sr., was President. The Senator from Connecticut stepped up and joined me. It was known as the Warner-Lieberman amendment at that time.
Subsequently, when the second resolution was to be drawn up, I again was joined by Senator Lieberman, Senator McCain, and Senator Bayh. The four of us drew that one up.
He has been on the Senate Armed Services Committee these many years that he has served in the Senate, and he has shown tremendous leadership. And each day he grows in stature as a statesman and his stature as a knowledgeable person regarding the security interests of this country.
As they exist today and in the future--when I say ``in the future,'' for our children and grandchildren--they acknowledge their appreciation to the Senator from Connecticut for his wisdom.
The remainder of time under my control I yield to the Senator from Pennsylvania.
I yield back the remaining 2 minutes I have under my control. The order provides for 30 minutes for the distinguished Senator from California, to be followed by 20 minutes from the Senator from West Virginia, Mr. Byrd.
Mr. President, I express my appreciation to the Senator from Georgia. He is a very valued member of the Armed Services Committee, as is Senator Thune, who spoke earlier, as was Senator Sessions.
I think we have had a good debate. We are prepared to continue that debate as long as it is desired. We are here to stay. We feel very strongly about these issues, you know. I do not want to invade the time of my good friend.
I yield the floor at this time, and I will follow him.
Mr. President, if that is with no objection, the next 30 minutes is under the Senator's control.
That is correct.
I hope we have a rotation.
Mr. President, before the Senator closes, I would like to say a word or two with him.
You finish your closing and I will wait.
Mr. President, first, I would say this has been a good debate. Say what you want. I listened very carefully to what you said, and there are certain elements with which I agree with you. You and I have known each other a long time. I have great respect for your military career, the accomplishments you have had. I think you often shared that with regard to my modest career.
But I must say, I kind of bit my tongue here a few minutes ago when you said in our old days we used to have a colloquy and talked. I arrived on the floor of this Senate at around 9:30, when I first got here. It is exactly 12 hours now that I have been on this floor. And the first thing I said--and I don't want to personalize this--to the other side of the aisle was: Now, let's try to engage in a colloquy and exchange some views. I did say that since we were under a time constraint my questions would be charged to me, the replies from the other side charged to your side. It seemed to me fair enough. We had 5 hours before us at that time. But I have to tell you, I was flatly turned down.
So now, after 12 hours and your invitation to enter into a colloquy, I say to my good friend, you can ask me any question you wish. And I might start off with a question or two for you.
Beg your pardon?
Well, that is history. We are here now. Why don't we make the best of it?
We are here now.
Well, I must say, I shared that on this side, but I was willing to take the heat.
All right. We have the opportunity, Senator. Is there anything you wish to ask of me? And I will ask a few of you.
Mr. President, I don't know what that fraction is. But in discussions with senior military, clearly, they have said the insurgents, the foreign invaders, the others who have come in have dropped in terms of--somewhat--numbers of incidents. And, indeed, the sectarian violence--Sunni versus Shia, Kurds to some extent--has grown enormously. So I cannot qualify it. But the Senator is correct.
And that leads me to my first question, because----
Well, that remains to be seen. They are, right now, for example, in Baghdad, fighting side by side. A very significant number of Iraqi troops, together with the components of our troops, are trying to bring about a greater measure of stability and security in the very capital of this country.
I think we should make known to those following the debate and those who listened to the debate with Senator Levin, Senator Levin's amendment was a sense of the Congress. The amendment of our colleague from Massachusetts very explicitly becomes law,
if it were adopted and eventually went into the bill and the bill survived the conference.
The point I wish to make is, you are directing the President. For example, it says: The President shall redeploy, commencing in 2006, this year, United States forces from Iraq by July 1, 2007. So this is law. As we used to say in the old days, we are shooting real bullets with this one, not just a sense of the Congress.
Throughout the debate, not only this one in the past day or two on this bill, but we have always, certainly, on this side, resisted timetables. You talk about putting together a summit. That is on page 2, section (b), Iraq Summit: The President should work with the leaders of the Government of Iraq to convene a summit as soon as possible that includes those leaders, leaders of the governments of each of the countries bordering Iraq, representatives of the Arab League, the Secretary General of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization--I think that is important to have NATO in there--representatives of the European Union, and leaders of the governments of each permanent member of the United Nations Security Council, for the purpose of reaching a comprehensive political agreement for Iraq that engenders the support of the Sunnis, the Shias, and the Kurds by ensuring the equitable distribution of oil revenues--that is a very important point you make, disbanding the militias--another very important point, strengthening internal security, reviving reconstruction efforts and fulfilling related international economic aid commitments, securing Iraq's borders, and providing for a sustainable federalist structure in Iraq.
Those are all important subjects, commendable goals. But first let's go back. It has taken the Iraqis 18 months since the first election in early 2005, through three elections, through the formation of the first permanent government. And the first permanent government is just, as you and I as old sailors would say, getting its sea legs. You start a conference like this--and I think it is a good idea--but the first question that is going to be asked is, can we proceed to achieve any of these goals if we have overhanging this the redeployment of our forces by July 1, 2007?
Senator, that is a timetable. That is a concept which I and I think the majority in this Chamber have continuously rejected. How could you ask the other nations of the world to come in and begin to put their credit on the line, their dollars on the line, if you have this timetable to pull out the very foundation that is supporting such progress as has been achieved in the 18 months of getting the first government up and testing their sea legs?
Mr. President, it might be the case, but I would be willing to make a modest wager with you that if you got this conference under way, the first thing that they would ask would be to suspend this timetable of July 1, 2007.
I say to the Senator, I cannot see, for example, the governments of each country bordering Iraq suddenly beginning to rush in if they feel that a civil war could start. The pulling out of the troops, the setting of a timetable will be a signal to all of the various factions. I will concede it is the Shia against the Sunnis that is the major faction. Wait them out. Let's let the troops flow out and then we will topple this government with a civil war.
It seems to me, I say to my colleague, you cannot expect these nations that border Iraq, the Arab League, I can't see that they would step up and say, we are willing to do everything. But wait a minute, coalition forces----
Mr. President, I share that concern, but----
It is the presence of our troops today that is probably holding it back from becoming a civil war.
Mr. President, I remember well that conflict because I was then on the Intelligence Committee.
Mr. President, we just disagree. I feel this government hasn't
been given a chance. It has only been 6 weeks. It took 18 months to get to where they are today. If we were to enact this into law, presumably the authorization bill would be signed by the President--there is a question whether if this is in there, he would sign it--this would go into law in a matter of a few months. And then suddenly to try and call on the rest of the world--and by the way, I certainly did not see the European Union trying to help form the coalition forces. Of each permanent member of the Security Council, the only one, Great Britain, stepped forward. I don't see those countries suddenly coming in and making the types of commitments that this paragraph requires, if we are going to pull out the very stability that is holding together this fragile government and preventing a civil war today.
Mr. President, I think we have covered this point. We will just have to agree to disagree.
I would draw your attention to the clause where you say consultation with the Congress is required. Here we are, basically on the eve of the August recess which starts the first week in August. We come back here as a Congress for maybe 30 days or 5 weeks in September. Then leave again for elections. You say:
The President shall consult with the Congress regarding the
schedule for redeployment and shall submit such schedule to
Congress as part of the report required . . .
You know, we know how this institution works. We have been here for two decades apiece. I say, if the President were to devise a redeployment schedule to meet 2007, when do you think the Congress might swing into action and take such responsibility, as implied here, through the consultation process? I presume Congress could take an action to stop it. You are talking about July 1, and I don't see the Congress acting on such a proposal in a timely manner.
That may be true, but I will ask another question. Drop down to paragraph 3, ``maintenance of over-the-horizon troop presence.'' ``The President should maintain an over-the-horizon troop presence to prosecute the war on terror and protect regional security interests.''
Where would those troops, in all likelihood, be put?
That would require a substantial amount of installations to be constructed.
I caution my colleague because that is saying to this new Iraqi Government that you are going to fail.
You have to admit that July 1, 2007, is a timetable; am I not correct?
Mr. President, the Senator is operating on a premise that if this became law and the President issued a timetable, suddenly the level of violence would begin to be lowered considerably.
Mr. President, if you say the violence is not going to stop if this became law, if this becomes law, we have to make a movement in reduction in 2006. That is in there. There has to be a commencement. You would not wait and send out a platoon on Christmas Eve. You mean a significant drawdown, leaving only 6 months in the following year to get the bulk of the forces out. And if we start moving those troops, I tell you that will engender a higher level of violence and lead possibly to a civil war.
Mr. President, I say to my colleague that I agree fundamentally with the premise that the Iraqi people, in the final analysis, are the ones who are going to be able to bring about their own measure of democracy and enable this Government to exercise sovereignty.
Other Senators want to participate, so I will soon yield. I know both of us have had the opportunity to serve in the military. There is nothing more painful than the loss of a brother member of the service. I don't know about you, but it has been difficult for me today to contain my absolute outrage about what happened, Mr. President, to these two young soldiers who raised their right arms and volunteered for this service in Iraq, to have been captured and brutally mauled and executed.
You know, I would say a rough calculation is that we probably have had about a million and a quarter Americans--that is, our brave men and women in uniform and many civilians from the departments and agencies of our Government, including a number of American contractors--who have contributed to where we are today in this new Government standing up and beginning to exercise the powers of sovereignty.
I say to my good friend, given that heavy investment, the risks taken by over a million and a quarter of our citizens, to send out a signal now--and it is a timetable, Senator--that July 1, 2007, barely 12 months from now that we would probably have under your formula--I ran a calculation--you are going to leave some behind for training and some for logistics, but basically I would say the fighting forces are out. Some may be pre-positioned in other countries nearby. There is a clause in here requiring a report as to how soon they can come back to the continental limits of the United States. That is going to send a signal, and that worries me, that all these people who made these risks and contributions are going to sit back and say, right at the threshold of really the first rays of hope to get this problem solved, we send this type of signal.
What did you feel when we lost these two individuals? I know you felt it probably as badly as I did. I cannot understand why they could be saying over there that, see what we did, we beheaded two, and what did the Congress do? It passed this law that said our troops would be redeployed by July 1, 12 months from today.
Senator, timing in life is everything. The timing for this concept you have has not arrived, I say to my good friend.
Mr. President, I will conclude. The Senator from Massachusetts and I have had this conversation about that period of history before. We will have it again and again. I recall, I went to the Pentagon in February 1969 and was there for 5 years in the Navy Secretariat. As the Secretary of the
Navy, the Senator always said I was his boss. He has been very respectful about that.
I remember when his Silver Star came through our Secretariat at that time. I went back and checked for accuracy, and it was accurate, I say to the Senator. He knows that, and I know that.
I thought many times about that period, and I recall that the then- Secretary of Defense, Melvin Laird, came to the conclusion that we had to begin a program of Vietnamization and begin to look toward bringing our troops home. I remember that, and the rest is history.
I share those concerns. I, like the Senator from Massachusetts, every day, particularly in my responsibility as chairman of the Armed Services Committee, worry about these men and women in uniform. Like the Senator, I visit the hospitals, go to the funerals when it is appropriate for me to do so. I share that burden. I think most of our colleagues do. I happen to know that our President shares those burdens.
Mr. President, I say to the Senator, my friend, there is a time for everything, and I feel ever so strongly that we have to give this new government more time to try and exercise that sovereignty before we take the very dramatic steps that the Senator from Massachusetts has set forth in this amendment, which I say not as a buzzword, but there is that timetable.
I do not think the other nations will come in. I do not think we could bring to bear the resources elsewhere in the world in the timetable that is laid down here.
There is one other point that we should consider, and that is we are there with a coalition of forces. I see no mention--maybe I didn't read it carefully--but no mention of what would Great Britain think if we were to take this somewhat unilateral action as the Senator proposes? What would Poland, what would the other nations think? They don't have the measure of the troops of quantity and so forth, but they are there in spirit.
Mr. President, I admire the courage of the Prime Minister of Great Britain. The Senator from Massachusetts has seen it, and I have seen it. We are political figures, he and I. We understand when we see another leader. He has stood with our President and our President has stood with him, unlike any two leaders of the United States and Great Britain since really Roosevelt and Churchill. It is remarkable what those two men have done.
Mr. President, we will conclude. I just say if we had more time, I would want to enter into another chapter of debate with the Senator on what would be the consequences if we saw failure; if this program of his, no matter how well conceived and how conscientious, were to trigger that failure, what would be the consequence.
The fact that this country could revert to a haven for further training of al-Qaida and terrorists from all over the world----
Mr. President, I say to my colleague, I think this has been a very worthwhile colloquy between us. I must say on this side, there are 55 who are going to stand tall and unify with no dissension on tomorrow at the time of the vote.
At this time, can I inquire as manager of the bill if there are other Senators desiring to speak?
I am prepared to remain here as long as is necessary.
On this side, I see my colleague from Alabama, although he has had some opportunity, but very limited opportunity.
Mr. President, I think I have the floor.
I am trying to accommodate Senators. I ask my friend, if he desires to speak, can he advise the manager of the bill how much time he would like?
We are going back and forth, and I am about to relinquish the management of the bill to my good friend from Alabama.
The parliamentary situation is we remain on the bill, and debate can continue on the bill. We are not going to try and have time constraints. We are trying for the benefit of this infrastructure that has to remain in place and such Senators who may be listening to determine who would like to speak and for what period of time. That is all I am trying to ascertain.
Can the Senator from Iowa advise the chairman as to how much time?
Mr. President, does the Senator from Alabama desire some time also?
Good. I relinquish the management of this bill to the Senator from Alabama and such time that Senator Sessions and Senator Harkin may require. I thank all for their participation.
I think that will be advisable.
Mr. President, I think that is a reasonable request.
Mr. President, I think this chairman has resonated with debates for months on this issue of timetables. I say to my good friend from Massachusetts, as I stated in our colloquy here, clearly by setting forth a terminal date there is a timetable, and that, in my judgment, is a very destabilizing thing. It sends a signal that perhaps the United States has less than the will and the commitment, as clearly expressed by our President many times, most recently upon his return from his trip to Iraq just days ago, that we are there to help the Iraqi people achieve their goals.
Now we expect from them a level of cooperation to move, hopefully, most swiftly to establish a full range of sovereignty and the responsibility that goes along with that. All I have asked repeatedly is give them a chance to do that. We have 18 months in the making of this permanent unified Government. Give them a chance. I think that is the President's desire--I know it is.
Yes, that is correct.
The Senator from Wyoming, and Senator Bingaman was with us.
That is right.
That is absolutely correct. I will even go a step further. I said: The American people have a strong voice in this, and the elected representatives in Congress listen to those voices. You need only look at the expressions being put forth today.
But leadership requires reassuring our people, reassuring the Iraqis, reassuring the consortium of nations of the coalition, reassuring all others that this fight in Iraq portends the next half century of the history of that region. If it fails, who knows where the end of the strife will come in that region--the possible destabilization of one of the largest concentrations of energy in the world, which suddenly begins to impact in many ways on the quality of life here at home and throughout the world. That whole infrastructure could be challenged if this Nation devolves into a vicious civil war and anarchy follows and a haven for terrorism follows. We cannot let that happen.
I just said to my good friend, timing is everything. The time for this amendment has certainly, in my judgment, not come, and a timetable is not a good signal to send out. I yield the floor, and I thank my colleague.
I remember it very vividly. Senator Levin was there. He questioned these individuals quite thoroughly, as did I, and as did you. And it is clear there is an unfortunate dichotomy that the Sunni people are, in large measure, responsible for those areas--al Anbar and Baghdad--where this great instability and insurrection takes place today. At the same time, I think the Sunnis should recognize that it is the participation of the United States and the other coalition partners that gives them the security against the majority of the Shiites who could revolt in such a way and challenge them and their future.
So let us hope that this government, which is a unity government with Sunni representation, can take hold. But it must be given the opportunity to send its roots down, to gain its stability and give it a chance. This amendment, in my judgment, would send the wrong signal and strip them of that chance.